I've just started poking through Aperture 3, and I'm very happy to see the work they have put into the product. The issues that were most problematic seem to have been addressed, and I'm happy to see the result.

John,Yes, you put your finger on it. There are a few other things. Sadly, one thing that I thought I read - directory view - does not seem to be in there. Still, the program now offers built-in export of your metadata back to DNG or XMP sidecar files.

I do seem to be seeing a bug with that at the moment. It's not actually pushing the metadata back into the files, as far as I can tell. Also, the Export command (which makes a new file, or file and sidecar file) seems to have some trouble. It does not overwrite ratings in the file.

I think I'm seeing another bug as well (not sure which program, though). Bridge can see metadata embedded in the export files. But Expression Media fails to parse any metadata at all for the file, in a quick test.

Further testing shows a mistake on my part - I was sure I had imported the files "in current location", but apparently I had imported them into the Aperture library. Indeed, these masters were updated with new metadata.

Sadly, the ratings bug does appear to be real. Ratings do not seem to be written back correctly to JPEG, TIFF, DNG, or NEF + Sidecar. And there is something funky about the format of the metadata written to export files.

Peter, I haven't been following the Aperture feature history as I'm still using Expression Media/iView Media Pro on a Mac running Tiger OS. One day soon I'll have to upgrade and abandon EM2, possibly for Aperture (assuming these bugs get worked out), but Tiger is incompatible with Aperture 3, so I can't test it.

I have a couple specific questions that I hope you can help with...

1. Can Aperture Web galleries be customized with the same sophistication to which I'm accustomed in iView/EM2? (I've tried researching this on the 'net, but the articles I found are very old, circa 2006 or 2007, and they say the gallery tools can not be customized very extensively, so I'm wondering if this has changed.)

2. I use Expression Media's "Catalog Sets" extensively (with nested sets) to organize photos for my galleries (e.g., choose Catalog Set > Make HTML Gallery. Do Aperture's organization tools approximate this behavior? (The Web gallery video tutorial on the Apple Aperture 3 web site implies as much, but it also shows a person "selecting" the photos manually with the cursor rather than simply choosing a project/folder/album. Very kludgy.)

1. Can Aperture Web galleries be customized with the same sophistication to which I'm accustomed in iView/EM2? (I've tried researching this on the 'net, but the articles I found are very old, circa 2006 or 2007, and they say the gallery tools can not be customized very extensively, so I'm wondering if this has changed.)

As far as I know, Mark, that hasn't changed. I did look into it once, and knew I could do something. The near-absence of documentation makes it a tougher job.

I'd add another more general point - is it a good idea to have too close a tie between one's cataloguing system and one's web output? The goals have to be web output that's customisable and a local-to-web workflow that's smooth and time-effective. Built-in web galleries can meet those criteria, with varying degrees of customisability - but they aren't the only way to reach the goals. And should they really stop you when you need to move cataloguing software? A bit like keeping a marriage together for the sake of the cat?

While I might use built-in galleries for quick contact sheets, I've long had a preference for driving the web site with a database-driven app. Nowadays I use an off-the-shelf package called SlideShowPro Director and simply upload large images directly from Lightroom. Separately, I build my web pages so they call images from Director. Now, if I moved to Aperture (which I won't as being limited to one brand of computer is a pretty big hole in its DAM credentials) I'd continue uploading images to Director, and my web output would be unaffacted by the change in my DAM app.

2. I use Expression Media's "Catalog Sets" extensively (with nested sets) to organize photos for my galleries (e.g., choose Catalog Set > Make HTML Gallery. Do Aperture's organization tools approximate this behavior? (The Web gallery video tutorial on the Apple Aperture 3 web site implies as much, but it also shows a person "selecting" the photos manually with the cursor rather than simply choosing a project/folder/album. Very kludgy.)

Yes, they do approximate this. Images are in a Project (like a set) and also in albums (catalog set children). However, for web output you have a type of album called a "web album" which is a catalog set which can be given HTML settings, and you output these web albums.

While the overall answer is "yes", it's important to understand the wider context. How would you feel if EM offered catalog sets, but simply didn't have anything like the folder panel? They wouldn't phrase it this way, but Aperture only has virtual folders or "projects" - but completely hides the actual locations of your files. Of course, the more you just close your eyes and just believe in Apple's goodness, the easier this becomes....

Second, Aperture advocates would say that Lightroom doesn't have web albums. The trouble is that Lightroom's collections are multi-functional - they are projects, and they are web albums. So it's a little like criticising someone for not having a sixth finger.

In Aperture 3 I applied a star rating, then saved the metadata for that DNG out to a text file (right click on image, export > metadata). The text file format appears to be a tab-del, for which Urgency is listed as 0, but there is a field named "Rating" which contains the star rating I applied.

While I might use built-in galleries for quick contact sheets, I've long had a preference for driving the web site with a database-driven app. Nowadays I use an off-the-shelf package called SlideShowPro Director and simply upload large images directly from Lightroom. Separately, I build my web pages so they call images from Director.

Thank for your thoughts, John. I really like that built-in galleries generate all the necessary JPEGs automatically from the source/master images (e.g., my edited and cropped RAW files in my DAM), without the need to manage additional files (other than the output files). Does SlideShow Pro Director do this too? Or does it require that you create/export a separate set of JPEGs prior to generating the Web files (i.e., to get the images out of Lightroom and into SSP Director)? In other words, "how many more clicks" are required to use SSP Director compared to a built-in Web gallery?

How would you feel if EM offered catalog sets, but simply didn't have anything like the folder panel? They wouldn't phrase it this way, but Aperture only has virtual folders or "projects" - but completely hides the actual locations of your files.

I might feel cheated, disappointed and remorseful. Then again, as long as I know where my files are, I might adapt. As long as Aperture doesn't create duplicates of my files like iPhoto does (at least I think it does; I don't actually use it.)

Second, Aperture advocates would say that Lightroom doesn't have web albums. The trouble is that Lightroom's collections are multi-functional - they are projects, and they are web albums. So it's a little like criticising someone for not having a sixth finger.

Well, I don't like unnecessary or imposed organization schemes. Point for Lightroom.

Take a look at this presentation - it'll give you an idea how slick Director is. I do a single file > export from LR, and Director then creates JPEGs of the right size for the HTML or Flash sites, and could do so for an iPhone one too

I've only just upgraded to Aperture 3 after a hiatus (been using LR because of the very point you make in your book that metadata can't be exported to the files) and was hopeful that Apple had addressed some of the basic problems I'd had. The list of new features suggested it had. Haven't had long enough to play with it but after importing a folder of images that had been rated I immediately noticed A3 doesn't recognise star ratings entered in Adobe programs. Expression Media recognises these ratings, is there any way Aperture 3 can? Or do I have to wait... again...

In Aperture 3 I applied a star rating, then saved the metadata for that DNG out to a text file (right click on image, export > metadata). The text file format appears to be a tab-del, for which Urgency is listed as 0, but there is a field named "Rating" which contains the star rating I applied.

Forget my comment - I goofed. Urgency is used for the coloured label, not the rating. Doh.

It looks like there are simply some bugs with the Aperture rating implementation.

If I Write Metadata to Master, no ratings seem to get written

If I export a "Master" and tell it to make a sidecar file, the rating is correctly written to the sidecar, and can be seen by other programs.

If I export the Master, and tell it to embed the metadata, any previous star rating (applied before the file was put into Aperture) remains, but the Aperture-created rating does not. I tried for JPEG, TIFF and DNG. Other metadata created in Aperture is embedded in the file.

Unfortunately, it looks like it is shedding at least some metadata in these newly exported files such as the "Mark as Copyrighted" tag.

Hopefully, these bugs will be addressed in a forthcoming .1 release.Peter